<p>Not only that, but I also find it amazing that some racial preference supporters honestly believe that there’s more than a handful of "URM"s at elite institutions who are literally from “the ‘hood.’” The example TheGFG gave several pages back is not isolated; most of the "URM"s at top schools are from backgrounds that are at least middle class. Racial preferences simply serve those who are already middle class or higher; they do not aid whatsoever in creating a “URM” middle class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, the vestiges of anti-Asian sentiment in the U.S. can still be seen in the [U.S</a>. Code](<a href=“http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/7]U.S”>http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/7). But we receive no racial preferences even though correcting for past sins is supposed to be the real driver behind racial preferences (cf. the sham argument of “diversity”).</p>
<p>I agree that it’s not a perfect analogy. That’s why I said “a bit similar”. But you can see that there is some similarity between those arguments.</p>
<p>Exactly. My reminder holds yet again. To assess whether a comment against Asians makes sense, simply replace “Asian” with “Jew” and change the time frame. Hunt’s comment seems to suggest that the Jews in the 1930s accepted the anti-Semitism of HYP et al. for they continued to apply there en masse. That is absurd.</p>
<p>Regarding the attacks on the SAT because it does not predict GPA: the thing is that an elite school (presumably) is looking for more than a good student who will get good grades. They are looking for the Bill Gates type who may get there, become totally intrigued by an idea, run with it and change the world. How do you measure for the Bill Gates quotient? Well, one way is just sheer mathematical and verbal reasoning measures – and the SAT is pretty much the best we have for that. The SAT II subject tests are content tests, hence their predictive value for good students who get high grades. The SAT reasoning test is for . . . reasoning, which is, of course, impossible to truly measure but a content test is not going to do it.</p>
<p>Moreover, gpa in college doesn’t really always mean that much. A low gpa in theoretical math or physics, for example, does not mean you’re stupid or lazy! A high gpa in some concentrations does not mean you’re brilliant or driven. So I think dismissing the SAT reasoning test because it is not a foolproof predictor of college gpa is kind of ridiculous.</p>
<p>I’m ready to be done with this very interesting thread. I’m not Asian. My kids aren’t Asian. One went to Harvard, totally unhooked angular gpa test score kid. My own background is very much public university. I came upon this and got pulled in. I don’t think either side is really proven itself on this thread. i think there are are enough troubling questions and data for the question of whether there is racism against Asians in elite school admissions to be considered and not just summarily dismissed. I would definitely support a more thorough examination of the issue and of AA in admission in general. Not because I’m against HYPS or AA but because I think that’s what we’re about in this society – questioning and holding ourselves to the highest possible standard. I think we can do better on this one.</p>
<p>I also think members of URMs other than Asians should be first in line in supporting the inquiry. It saddens me that this is not the case on this thread.</p>
<p>My first post on this website in 2006 was in response to a thread on this very same topic. If you have paid attention over the years, you would know the examination of the issue has been extremely thorough by some extremely knowledgeable posters (including Fab), who have apparently done all of the research and looked at every piece of literature available on this subject. </p>
<p>Currently, the topic appears to be at an impasse, due to a lack of challenge to the US Supreme Ct case upholding the use of race as a factor in admissions for the purpose of creating diversity, and the apparent inconclusive fizzling out of the Jian Li complaint.</p>
<p>Some further action is needed if anyone wants something different than the status quo.</p>
<p>20more, you were cheated. Despite the best intentions for the policy, the truth is that group preferences inevitably will be harmful for innocent individuals such as yourself. It’s not right, but it’s the way it is under our system of “positive discrimination.” Even though it’s not racism, the effect on you is the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He doesn’t believe it because he’s smart enough to know that it’s not true. The outcomes for he and his friends would almost certainly be different if not for their race.</p>
<p>We all know this. We all read the threads, and we’ve all seen the statistics. Why pretend otherwise?</p>
We don’t all “know” this simiply because you declare it so. Injustice is the deniial of a right. THere is no “right” to an elite education at a private university - I don’t care what your SAT score is. It may be inegalitarian, but it certainly is not unjust. But you’re supposedly ignoring me anyway, so I trust you won’t read this post. Just as well.</p>
<p>Agreed. Indeed, it seems like those who have enjoyed success in overcoming hurdles are in denial that such barriers still exist for other groups and thus seem trying to hold back others. Reminds me of the abused becoming the abuser.</p>
<p>Actually, it’s more analogous to “Why are you so interested in sending your kid to Ku Klux Klan training camp and contributiong to the KKK if you consider them racist.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although there are some obvious parallels, I was always taught that it is perilous to compare similar practices across time periods without considering historical context. I also believe it is wise to form more nuanced evaluations, rather than some sort of binary comparison - this is racism exactly like this is antisemitisim. THat’s why I believe it is appropriate to consider motivation, methodology, and degree in such comparisons.</p>
<p>How are these practices similar? Both the anti Jewish activities and the Anti Asian activites are not strrictly egalitarian, Today’s AA does unfairly burden Asians in these admissions decisions. And to the extent that Asians have higher standards to surpass than whites, that is paritcularly unfair and unwarranted IMO. And I’m lily white Catholic BTW.</p>
<p>How are these practices different? First, as Hunt has pointed out, with respect to motivation. One need only read “The Chosen” to understand the explicitly racist rationale for limitiing admissions to Jews- it is stated. THey were undesirables, and in fact some Jews were deemed more undesirable than others. THis is against a backdrop of widely accepted hate speech on the radio, and festering anitsemitism that would soon rear it’s ugly head in the Holocaust. Does this matter to the aggrieved party (Asian)? No, but I believe it is fair to look at before pinning the label “racist” on today’s university.</p>
<p>I don’t remember the history exactly, but I’m pretty sure it was something like this - I could be mistaken, but I don’t think Jews or anybody else applied “en masse” to these schools in those days. They were still mainly the province of the East Coast elite. </p>
<p>Harvard was probably the least offender in the 20s. THe highest the percentage of Jews ever got at Yale or Princeton was 7% and 4% respectively. Before the quota system. I believe this was right around or below their representation in the population. But this was still considered too high,they really didn’t want any of them around, at least not enough to be noticed. So the schools either set quotas or used other methods - such as the denial of financial aid - to reduce their number below this and virtually to nothing. Current Asian populations at these schools exceed their representation in the population - even after today’s selective admissions policies artifically lower their number. </p>
<p>Is today’s system strictly fair? Of course not. Is it equivalent in scope, methodology and motivation to the practices of the 1920s? I don’t believe so. Just as it not fair to compare the admissions antisemitism of the 1920s to something like actual ethnic cleansing, I don’t believe it is fair to make an exact comparison between these historical practices and today’s AA.</p>
<p>Well, I’m also done with this thread. I don’t know why I posted this much anyway. Really this is not something I ever think about. It’s just that I think “racist” is a pretty nasty epithet and I think it should be used sparingly.</p>
<p>I second that. I don’t think any schools claim that they don’t consider race or gender in their admissions. They want to maintain a certain gender ratio and race ratio which we cannot call sexist or racist.</p>
<p>If race were not a factor and each applicant were known as a number to adcoms, I don’t think the holistic approach works as well as today in maintaining a balanced freshmen class. Many arguments here, such as “not as interesting”, “lack of musicality”, “not as creative”, would be hard to make.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the OP wanted the right of equal treatment. He should’ve switched names with his white friends and see if the results differed.</p>
<p>Not a scientific sample. It’s only instructive if one had the following data:</p>
<p>APPLICATION NUMBERS FOR EACH ETHNIC CATEGORY TO EACH SCHOOL TO WHICH OP APPLIED
APPLICATION DATA, OF INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS, FOR EACH ETHNIC CATEGORY
PERCENTAGE OF EACH CATEGORY ACCEPTED, W/LISTED, DENIED</p>
<p>And that data will never be made availabe because it’s confidential (protected). Further, it’s way more fun to act like a martyr and assume the world just doesn’t get how “smart” you are, and how everyone of other racial/ethnic categories must be “dumber” than you. (But hey, the assumption that every non-Asian is “stupider” than every Asian is not racist, it’s just your impeccable world view.)</p>
<p>Colleges, btw, don’t define “smart” as a test score. Not absolutely, and not relatively. Not without the other 9 categories of application elements they consider to be indicators of “smart.”</p>
Because, at most, the available evidence justifies only a suspicion. The evidence supports the idea that if grades and scores alone were considered at some selective schools, that there would be more Asians accepted vs. whites. This, certainly, is sufficient reason to ask why that’s happening. According to the colleges–and Princeton explicitly said this in response to Jian Li’s accusations–it’s not happening because of a desire to limit the number of Asians, but is a result of holistic admissions decisions looking at multiple factors. So, with respect to Princeton, these are the possibilities I see:
Princeton is lying.
Princeton isn’t lying, but the admissions committee is unconsciously limiting Asians because of bias against them.
A combination of “soft” application factors (like essays, recommendations, and interviews) plus demographic factors like geographical diversity, choice of major, recruited athletes and legacies, and variety of ECs results in lower admissions for Asians than they would get if you considered stats alone.</p>
<p>Any of these three is possible, in my opinion. The fact that the Jian Li investigation has gone nowhere suggests, at least, that there is no smoking gun pointing to the first possibility. I’ve mentioned numerous factors that relate to the third possibility–and if that’s the explanation, time and assimilation will mitigate those effects. If it’s the second possibility, it’s hard to know what to do–again, maybe time and assimilation will change attitudes, too.</p>
<p>
This depends on which part of the discussion you’re addressing. If you’re talking about AA for URMs, the response (which I know you don’t agree with) is that it would be a bad thing for the number of URM students at the top schools to drop to only a few percent, and it’s worthwhile to take steps to prevent that. You can’t do that without a race-based preference.</p>
<p>But if you’re talking about the difference between Asians and whites, then I agree that no classification is needed. But would you really feel that you had won the victory if the most selective colleges changed their forms to ask for “White or Asian” and announced that they would not consider race with respect to admitting a white vs. an Asian student? They’ve already said that they don’t do that. What steps by a college would really convince you that they weren’t discriminating against Asians to the benefit of whites?</p>
<p>I do disagree but I won’t criticize your post as it is honest: the “URM” population will dwindle in the absence of racial preferences. What I have never liked is reading the statement “affirmative action doesn’t do much for the URMs” as it begs the question, why keep it then if it’s so ineffectual? At least what you are saying is consistent: we keep it BECAUSE it is effectual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume this means that we are still keeping preferences for "URM"s. Assign each applicant a number for that year’s admissions cycle. The readers never see the name, so “Susie Wong can’t hide her ethnicity” doesn’t apply here. The infamous box only has categories for "URM"s.</p>
<p>But for your question, perhaps we should ask Jerry Kang, William Kidder, and Frank Wu, for they believe that it’s possible to quelch “negative” action while keeping “affirmative” action. How I don’t know for sure.</p>
<p>Well, I think negative action can be eliminated, even while affirmative action remains, because I think it has been done with respect to Jews. Perhaps somebody will disagree, but I have not heard of any perception that selective colleges do anything to limit the percentage of Jews admitted these days, or that anybody particularly cares about the percentage of Jews anywhere (except Brandeis).</p>
<p>If colleges actually do as they say they do, which is consider a candidate within the context of his educational environment–which includes geography and socio-economic factors–then I do not see how race should be a necessary piece of information on an application. If the elite school finds the most highly polished jewels in affluent prep schools and wealthy suburban schools, and also identifies the wonderful diamonds- in-the-rough in poor rural and urban schools with fewer available resoures and opportunities, then wouldn’t this result in a reasonable distribution of ethnicities? And if it doesn’t, then it’s no fault of the school, right? </p>
<p>My suspicion is that deep down some elite schools and their admissions counselors don’t believe that all races have an equal distribution of intelligence, motivation, creativity, athleticism, leadership skills, and musical talent among their members. For that reason, they have to carefully monitor their admissions selections to maintain quotas or achieve desired percentages, so no one will accuse them of racism when there are too many of one group or too few of another. My question is, what would really happen if they stopped doing that? Perhaps the problem, as I believe one poster pointed out, is that they are not doing enough to attract applications from those diamonds in the rough.</p>
<p>The answer, IMO, is NOT to reward URM students with elite admissions when they were only mediocre achievers despite having had every opportunity available to their non-URM counterparts. That is wrong.</p>
<p>I understand and support giving preferences to kids who have overcome poverty or difficult circumstances. I don’t support giving preference to someone who is the child of a CEO who goes to an exclusive private school just because they are black or latino. Preferences simply based on race is racist.</p>
I think the diamond in the rough who is prepared to do work at the high levels at the most selective schools is extremely rare. So, what would really happen (according to the studies cited way upthread) is that instead of Ivy League schools having 6% black students, they would have half that many, or less. Whether that is OK or not is a matter of one’s philosophy about this. The other alternative would be, as somebody else suggested, would be for Harvard, et al., to create some special prep program to find these diamonds in the rough and give them remedial education to prepare them for high-level college work. How these diamonds are going to be identified isn’t clear to me, though.</p>
<p>If you look at the results threads for the Ivy schools, you will not find any URM admittees who are “mediocre achievers.” What you will typically find are kids who were achievers in high school in many areas, but who have SATs of 2020 or so.</p>
<p>
No, it isn’t. It’s a race-based decision, but it is not a preference given to one race because of the view that it is superior to others.</p>
<p>I’d like to address two repeatedly recurring points:
The restriction of Asians today differs from the discrimination of Jews of 1920s because limiting numbers of Asians is due to rational reasons and not due to animus or hatred of Asians.
The investigation of Princeton is going nowhere, thus Jian Li’s accusation of discrimination is unfounded. </p>
<p>Bellow is Jerome Karabel’s description in The Chosen why Lowell came to the decision to impose a Jewish quota at Harvard:<br>
</p>
<p>And Lowell told it in his own words (from The Chosen):
</p>
<p>It seems to me that Lowell’s reasons were not all that different from some arguments used in this thread.</p>